Section 147(2) permits removal of railway trespassers without notice or proceedings under the Public Premises Act.

The appellants, representing hawkers and members of the Chandanpur Bazar Railway Premises Shoppers’ Cooperative Society Limited, challenged an eviction-cum-show-cause notice dated 1 August 2025 issued by the railway authorities in respect of alleged encroachments on railway land at Chandanpur Railway Station.

In earlier writ proceedings, the appellants had been granted opportunities of hearing and representation.

Pursuant to a subsequent direction of the writ court, the Railway authorities passed a reasoned order dated 17 October 2023, holding that the appellants had produced no authentic document authorising their business or possession on railway land and that the Railway had never permitted formation of the cooperative society for that purpose.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the challenge to the eviction notice, leading to the present appeal.

The appellants relied on a Railway communication dated 21 February 2006 and the registration of the cooperative society, while the Railway authorities contended that no permission or no-objection certificate had ever been granted.

The Court applied Section 147(1) and (2) of the Railways Act, 1989, under which a person entering railway property without lawful authority, misusing it, or refusing to leave may be removed by a railway servant or a person called by such servant to his aid.

The expression “railway” under Section 2(31) includes lands within the fences or boundary marks indicating the limits of land appurtenant to a railway.

The Court held that Section 147(2) operates independently of, and overrides, the procedure under Sections 4 and 5 of the West Bengal Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 in relation to railway property.

It relied on G. Phalaguna v. General Manager, 2006 (2) Cal LJ 193, Subrata Ghosh v. Union of India, 2019 (2) CHN 62, and the subsequently affirmed decision in WPA 18248 of 2024, for the proposition that Railway authorities may remove encroachers without resort to the 1971 Act.

The Court further applied the prejudice-based approach to natural justice, holding that a further hearing is unnecessary where the affected party has already received an adequate hearing and a reasoned decision has been rendered.

The subject property admittedly belonged to the Railways and therefore fell within the statutory definition of “railway” under Section 2(31) of the 1989 Act.

Since the appellants had no document establishing any right, title, permission, licence, or authority to occupy the land, they fell within the category of persons contemplated by Section 147(1), including persons who, having entered lawfully or otherwise, refused to leave.

Section 147(2) consequently empowered the Railway authorities to remove them without first instituting proceedings under the 1971 Act.

The appellants had already been heard in the earlier litigation, and the Railway authorities had passed a speaking order dated 17 October 2023 rejecting their claim; that order had not been stayed or set aside.

The 21 February 2006 communication merely sought documents for processing the appellants’ request and did not promise or confer any right to occupy railway land.

Nor did registration of the cooperative society create such a right, particularly since no Railway no-objection certificate or permission had been issued and the Assistant Registrar had acknowledged that such approval was required.

The reference to a “show cause notice” in the impugned notice was therefore treated as surplusage; substantively, it was an intimation of removal under Section 147(2).

It held that the Railway authorities were entitled to remove the appellants and their members from the railway premises under Section 147(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 without following the procedure under the 1971 Act and without issuing any further hearing notice.

However, considering that the appellants had been carrying on vending activities on the premises for a long period, the Court granted the appellant no. 2 and its members 90 days from the date of judgment to vacate the railway premises, failing which the Railway authorities could take appropriate steps for removal.

No order as to costs was made.